Interesting view on US politics and energy infrastructure

A bill that passed the Senate last week. By a vote of 85-12.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/114-2016/s54

A bill proposed by a Republican. Voting on it at the bottom.

A renewable energy reference to it.

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/art ... house.html

After reading those opposed views in the above refer back to the voting again.

Actually the bill amendment votes are even more interesting for those interested but that is a lot of reading.

Something to think about,
T2M

PS I wonder if Senator Reed would have let a bill come to a vote if 24% of his party would vote against it. Makes me wonder.

Interesting. For us who have little time, could you give us a brief outline on what it is all about? Respectfully.

HB of CJ wrote:Interesting. For us who have little time, could you give us a brief outline on what it is all about? Respectfully.

The New York Times seems to be a good synopsis. About a thousand words. It is dated from January but was updated as the bill progressed.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/28/us/po ... .html?_r=0


For me to part of the problem is that it is complicated. I would have to sort through a lot of GovTrack.us Emails for the relevant bill amendments. More of the problem is my communication and organizational skills suck. Plus what I find interesting is different from most.

Like the fact that the Democrats voted in lock step and the Republicans didn't. Which would never have happened under Senator Reed's leadership. If that many Dems were against it, it would have been tabled, or lost in committee (Senator Sanders was one who voted for it not to go to the floor, for those interested, didn't vote on the final version).

Which I think is indicative of Republicans being in more inclined to the listen to the constituency than marching orders from NV or CA. But that is just MY OPINION of it.

In general I like the bill nothing I am overly for, but nothing I am vehemently against either. Good seems to outweigh the bad. <shrug>



The last energy policy bill was passed during in 2007. When America was very concerned about oil and natural gas shortages. Other such things.

Things have changed quite a bit drastically since then.

Many of the things addressed in this are things that are Federal Responsibilities to an extent. It does not make sense to build a pipeline or transmission power line if the next state over can't connect to it. So streamlining that process makes a lot of sense.

Another thing they address is utilities must consider in documentation whether grid storage was considered when building new plants. Which is something that as a nation we do need to consider (most of what is renewable is not steady). Giving tax breaks without storage is short term stupid, IMO. Whether it is a national or state thing like California is doing is open to debate. I would prefer it at the state level. But then again that is because I see the problem with that near 4 near zero CO2 power producers being stymied by Federal regulator agencies that consider arsenic and CO2 the same thing.




A key quotes form the 1st link.

The New York Times wrote that the bill is somewhat watered down in order to achieve this bipartisan support: “It is chiefly focused on modernizing energy infrastructure and improving energy efficiency. It does not include language to drastically increase fossil fuel production, as most Republicans would like, nor does it boldly address climate change, as most Democrats want.”

So what would it do? The bill would create or improve several programs designed to increase energy efficiency in buildings, require significant upgrades to the electrical grid including large-scale storage systems for electricity, expedite liquid natural gas exports, loosen permitting rules for construction of natural gas pipelines on federal lands, provide subsidies for hydropower and geothermal, and permanently authorizing the Land and Water Conservation Fund

Heritage Foundation wrote:“The provisions are simply a continuation of government meddling in the energy economy and would waste taxpayer resources, override consumer preference, direct money toward politically preferred technologies, and appease special interests.”

“Several provisions in this bill … we believe could cause detrimental effects to public health and our environment. For example, there is no need to exempt hydropower facilities from regulations that have worked for a century. Some provisions could also have unintended severe consequences for EPA public health protections. We are also troubled by the lack of clean energy investments made by a bill that claims to modernize our energy policy.”

Additional links:

https://www.scribd.com/doc/272766005/Gr ... as-drafted

about 1,200 words.

http://heritageaction.com/key-votes/key ... ct-s-2012/
Fairly short.

Hope this what you were looking for.

Appreciate the comment on my post,
T2M